Create a support ticket for issue tracking
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID creating the ticket | |
| priority | No | medium | |
| issue_type | Yes | Type of issue | |
| description | Yes | Detailed description of the issue |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a support ticket', which adds no information beyond the tool's name. It does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, return value, or any post-conditions. This is a minimal disclosure gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it easy to scan. While it omits details, conciseness itself is good; it's not under-specified to the point of being a bare tautology.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should at least hint at what the tool returns (e.g., ticket ID). It doesn't. The tool is simple, but the missing return-value and behavioral context make it incomplete for an agent to use confidently. Companion tool get_ticket suggests a ticket is created, but the description doesn't confirm what response to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params described), and priority has an enum and default that clarify its meaning. The description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema already covers most semantics. Since coverage is not >80%, the baseline isn't full, but the gap is minor and the description doesn't need to compensate heavily.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and object: 'Create a support ticket for issue tracking'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_campaign or create_stake, and aligns with the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating tickets but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It's clear enough for the core use case but lacks any contextual direction beyond the action itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions. The only potential confusion is between approve_job and complete_deal, both releasing payments, but descriptions clearly differentiate job vs deal contexts. Overall, tools are well-separated.
Almost all tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, etc.). The only outlier is network_stats, which lacks a verb, but this is a minor deviation from an otherwise uniform convention.
With 29 tools, the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a well-scoped server. While the platform covers many domains (jobs, payments, trust, identity, campaigns, tickets), the high count feels heavy and could benefit from consolidation or clearer separation into sub-modules.
Core job and stake lifecycles are fully covered, but tickets and campaigns only support create/list/get with no update, delete, or close operations. Payment also lacks a direct send/unified transfer option. These gaps are notable but workarounds exist via deals and top-up links.